The Bay is a unique hotspot for biodiversity, and oyster harvesting has for generations been at the heart of the region’s economy and culture.įor Georgia, the case represents not only an existential threat to the future growth of metro Atlanta, but could have major economic implications for agriculture, the state’s largest industry.
It’s not just about Apalachicola oysters. Gordon Rogers, executive director of Flint Riverkeeper, drives a boat on the Flint River near the Decatur-Mitchell County line on October 17, 2019. And that’s not counting the separate but related suits currently moving through lower courts. The Supreme Court case has cost Georgia taxpayers more than $49 million in legal fees, according to the attorney general’s office. Meanwhile, Florida fish and wildlife officials in July took the extraordinary step of ordering a five-year oyster harvesting ban in the Apalachicola Bay to help the population rebound. Some observers believe that, because the two Trump picks are conservative, they’d be more receptive to Georgia’s argument that a water consumption cap would ravage the state economy, though water law is less of a partisan issue than a regional one. The Supreme Court has two new members - Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett -since it last heard the case. Kelly determined that Georgia’s water use is “reasonable” and urged justices to reject Florida’s case. Instead, in a 5-4 decision, the court assigned another expert judge, Paul Kelly of New Mexico, to revisit the case and see if he could find a remedy that would help Florida without decimating Georgia’s economy. Justices opted to reject an earlier recommendation from a court-appointed expert judge to dismiss Florida’s suit. Supreme Court justices first heard oral arguments in this case in Jan. Alabama is party to two separate cases that have been filed against the corps that are working their way through lower courts that could impact Georgia. since it, too, sits downstream from Georgia. Georgia also contends that limiting its residents’ consumption still won’t get Florida the water it wants, due to the complicated way the federal Army Corps of Engineers regulates its locks and dams in the ACF river basin.Īlabama is sitting out of this particular fight but is backing Florida. It estimates that the cost to Georgia would be “severe,” between $335 million to more than $1 billion. Georgia warns that, if Florida gets its way, farmers won’t be able to irrigate land in the highly productive, ag-heavy region around the Flint. That its water use has been reasonable and that Florida’s oyster industry has been hurt by climate change, Florida’s lax fishing oversight and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. When freshwater flows from the ACF decreased, the bay’s salinity increased, which allowed oysters’ predators to thrive and disease bacteria to proliferate.įlorida blames Georgia for the using up too much water upstream, particularly farmers in southwest Georgia.įlorida is asking the Supreme Court to impose water usage limits on Georgia, particularly during drought years, so more freshwater from the ACF can flow to Apalachicola. The mollusks rely on a delicate balance of freshwater from the ACF and saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico to survive. Credit: Blake Guthrieįlorida sued Georgia over its behavior during a multi-year drought, which Florida alleges led to the ecological collapse of the Apalachicola Bay in 2013 and its iconic oyster industry, which once produced 10% of the country’s oysters.
In the distance is the five-mile long bridge that connects the island to the mainland. An oysterman works his oyster tongs in Apalachicola Bay near St.
0 kommentar(er)
